Shepherd writeup
rfc8526-08

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

This document is a Proposed Standard document, and is indicated in the title page as a "Standards Track" document. This document extends a standards track document by supporting NMDA, which is also a standards track document.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document extends the NETCONF protocol defined in RFC 6241 in order to support the Network Management Datastore Architecture defined in RFC 8342.

This document updates both RFC 6241 and RFC 7950.  The update to RFC 6241 adds new operations <get-data> and <edit-data>, and augments existing operations <lock>, <unlock>, and <validate>.  The update to RFC 7950 requires the usage of I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis by NETCONF servers implementing the Network Management Datastore Architecture.

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

There were no major controversies with respect to this document, or decisions that were particularly rough. The most discussion happened around the use of "with-defaults" parameter as it relates to the operational datastore. After some discussion around it, additional text was added to the document to address the issue.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are vendors that have indicated an interest in implementing the changes for NMDA, or have asked questions on the mailing list regarding the changes that are required to support NMDA.

Implementors have requested for more examples for features introduced by this document, but the request came late in the process (after LC), and there is little appetite for change to the document at this time.

A YANG doctors review did result in a few changes to the document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

The Document Shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani and the Responsible Area Director is Ignas Bagdonas. 

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has reviewed the documented, and found one warning on the YANG module which is included in the document. The warning has been addressed as part of -06 update.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document was reviewed by few people in the WG in depth, with most of others being silent. This group has remained small, thus lacking breadth, is spite of every effort made by the chairs to involve other folks to review the document. 

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

The document has not introduced anything that require particular review from a broader perspective, other than those performed, i.e. OPS and YANG doctors review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

One aspect of the draft that might be confusing is the update to RFC7950. The document states that and update to RFC7950 is required. Specifically it says "The update to RFC 7950 requires the usage of I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis by NETCONF servers implementing the Network Management Datastore Architecture.". At the same time RFC7950 already says the following:

"The following changes have been done to the NETCONF mapping:

   o  A server advertises support for YANG 1.1 modules by using
      ietf-yang-library [RFC7895] instead of listing them as
      capabilities in the <hello> message."

It would be help to note that the change being requested in 7950 is from 7895 to 7895bis, or from yang-library:1.0 to yang-library:1.1.

Secondly, and this may not be directly related to this document, is support for both YANG 1.0 and 1.1 modules. Implementors are for the first time are having to deal with the support of YANG in a backward compatible fashion as they implement NMDA version of NETCONF. It is not clear as to what a server needs to do to support both 1.0 and 1.1 modules. This is not clarified anywhere. It would help to clarify (maybe in 7950) that YANG 1.0 models are advertised in <hello> and yang-library contains both 1.0 and 1.1 models, even if means duplication of 1.0 models advertisement.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes, all the authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPRs related to this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is a strong concurrence of a few individuals within the WG, with others being silent, but mostly because they agree with the contents of the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated discontent with the document.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

An idnits was run on the document, but the warnings it reports are false positives. The document has proper headers, abstract and introduction for documents that are updated. It also makes proper use of 2119 boilerplate, including wording from RFC8174.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

A YANG doctors review was done of the draft, and issues raised as a result of it were addressed in the document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes, all the references within the document have been identified as either normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is one normative reference to draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis, and that document is also in the IESG queue for publication.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references in the document.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

There are two documents that get updated if this document is approved. Both RFC6241 and RFC7950 have been listed in the title page header, listed in the abstract and discussed in the introduction of the document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document registers two capabilities, one URI and one YANG module. The registries for each of them have been identified in the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The document does not request any new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

A shepherd review of the document was performed and it involved running tools on the enclosed YANG model, which revealed a warning, and the warning has been shared with the authors and the WG. A similar check of the examples in the document was performed against the model, and no errors were reported against the examples.
Back